First off, I would like to thank both Jonathon and Gary for their most recent contributions to the ML. I will get to some of what they wrote later on.
I have a lot I want to write about, but I am not sure I will be able to organize it as well as I would like to, plus I will be repeating some things I have said in the past. So in advance I will ask you to bear with me.
At the end of 2006, it seemed like Gemstone had a bad news/good news situation. The bad news was that the pocket books and the Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck titles were being cancelled. This was indeed very bad news and very depressing for all of us Disney comics fans here in North America. However, we were then told there was good news. We were told that Gemstone was not just going to cut titles, but was going to publishing more stories in different formats. One would be large black and white collections similar to Marvel's "Essential" and DC's "Showcase" lines. Two would be a much bigger emphasis on trade paperbacks (TPBs). In fact, I think at the end of the news we were told we would see more Duck and Mouse stories in 2007 than in 2006!
Well, this obviously did not happen. Lets look at both things did not occur.
First off the B/W collections never materialized. From what I have read and heard, Gemstone was just not able to publish these for what would be a reasonable price. This ended up having *two* bad consequences. Obviously this meant that we would not be seeing the number of 3 panel stories we would have (more on 3 panel stories later). So whoever liked reading these stories now would miss out on them. However, there was a second unintended consequence. Since Gemstone had already purchased a number of 3 panel stories, Gemstone ended up putting them in the two remaining monthly titles. So this now had the effect of making less room for the more traditional 4 panel stories in US and WDC&S. :( So even if you did not like these stories and did not buy these pocket books, these 3 panel stories now ate the limited amount of pages of the two monthly titles.
A little aside with my views on these 3 panel stories. Jonathan did an *excellent* job of expressing his views on these stories and I agree with just about everything he wrote about them. Despite this, I stupidly am going to share *my* thoughts about them even though I will not be able to express myself near as well as Jonathan did. I guess I am just a glutton for punishment! :)
Two important points. One, I see (and think most other readers do) a *big* difference between the 3 panel stories of Scarpa and Cavazzano and the more recent Egmont produced 3 panel stories. So when I complain about 3 panel stories, I do *not* mean stories by Scarpa, Cavazzano, etc. Two, the point is that *generally* I do not find the Egmont 3 panel stories to be near the quality of the 4 panel stories. That is a generalization though. Were there Egmont 3 panel stories I enjoyed a lot? Yes. Were/are there Egmont 4 panel stories I think are pretty lousy? Yes. However, I like a *much* higher percentage of Egmont 4 panel stories than Egmont 3 panel stories.
Despite the fact that I do not like these 3 panel stories near as much as the 4 panel stories, I bought each and every issue of Donald Duck Adventures and Mickey Mouse Adventures. Moreover, I would *still* gladly be buying these titles if they were still being printed and I would have bought the B/W collections if they had ever materialized. However when it comes down to having only 2 monthly titles, I definitely prefer them to have 4 panel stories instead of three panel ones. Do others on the ML "wince" when they see a 3 panel story in a new issue of US and WDC&S? I must admit that I do and imagine many other people feel the same way. That is why I was *thrilled* when Gary wrote that he thinks most of them have been printed by now. That means US and WDC&S will soon be back to their old selves!
I would be curious what other think about these Egmont 3 panel stories. If you do not like them, what do you find lacking in them? I found/find two basic problems with them. One, the stories seem more childish and written for a younger audience. I know that may sound silly and that most of Disney comics are written for kids (I know *you* don't Don Rosa! :)). However, I always felt like I was reading much more juvenile stories. Two, even though the stories were longer, ironically they seem to have less plot and less story to tell. They mostly seemed to spend 30+ pages stretching out a so-so story that could have just as easily been told in 10 or so pages.
Now look at the other thing we were told would happen in 2007-- more TPBs and on a regular basis. This also did not happen as well. In fact, I think Gemstone is only publishing 2 TPBs this year; I think there were 3 in 2006! I think what I and a lot of other people are wondering is why is it taking so long for there to be more TPBs and perhaps is Gemstone *ever* going to get serious about publishing TPBs? Now if Gemstone thought they would not sell well, I could understand that. However, from all that I had read, Gemstone *does* like this format and even thinks this format may very well be the future of comics in North America. So if Gemstone still thinks this, why are they not publishing more of them? Perhaps if Gary, David, Travis, etc. could explain this it would at least be a little easier to accept.
Which bring me to the idea of a 3rd monthly prestige title. Jonathan, I love the idea of it being titled "Mickey and Donald" or "Donald and Mickey", but to tell you the truth I don't care what it would be titled as long as Gemstone published it! :) Once again I think the confusion I and other have about there not being a 3rd monthly title comes from comments from people at Gemstone. The reason we were told that US and WDC&S remained was that these monthly prestige titles *did* work financially. Well, if 2 monthly titles work, is there any reason to thing a 3rd would not?
So it is not only the lack of TPBs and a 3rd monthly title that are cause for sadness, but *also* the fact that we fans really have never been given a good reason *why* they are not published. So if Gary, David, Travis, etc. could tell us *why*, I know I would *greatly* appreciate it and imagine many others would as well. Of course, I realize that Gemstone in *no way* has to tell us their reasons for why they publish and do not publish certain things. I am *very* thankful each and every time someone from Gemstone contributes to the ML and never take it for granted. If someone could just answer the *why* questions about the TPBs and 3rd titles it would enlighten things for a lot of us Disney comics fans.
Sorry for rambling on so much about so much. And Jonathan did express his views *much* better than I did! In fact, Jonathan, did you ever consider doing some comic book work? :)
I would ask and implore people here on the ML to contribute and add to this conversation. I can't speak for Jonathan, but feel free to say why everything I wrote is wrong and idiotic! It doesn't matter *what* we have to say but is more important that we all speak up and make the DCML as lively and interesting as possible!
Dean Rekich
Author
Topic: 200711
(74 messages)
Deanmary
More Gemstone thoughts
Message 16 -
2007-11-10 at 07:48:00
Olivier (M&D)
Yet more Gemstone thoughts
Message 17 -
2007-11-10 at 14:22:25
Ditto to what Jonathan & Dean have said-- I will try and go beyond this lazy statement, though.
Many licence agreements, financial constraints and risks are to be taken in consideration, which I do not know about and probably cannot imagine, but ideally speaking, as a reader, I suppose a third regular title might be a good idea, idea.
This would naturally enable Gemstone to further diversify the contents of WDC&S and give us even more comics to read-- and maybe not necessarily in the prestige format (beautiful & certainly appealing to potential readers though it is), if this makes it easier on the costs and makes for more pages.
There is one thing I would love to see return (I have actually already said it here): articles on Disney comics and history, whether 2 pages or even only 1 page long. Gemstone does run inside cover essays by Don on his stories, but what made Gladstone particularly unique (to me, at least, comparing to French publications; I think it's different with the Greek Komix, for one) were all those "The Year That Was...", "Gladstone Profile", ..., features.
Regarding the stories themselves, the format per se is not the problem, naturally, though the infamous 3/6-panel stories do take some place in the star titles, which makes for even greater disappointment with the lesser stories.
(I have bought all the DDA & MMA pocket books, but have not read them all yet-- I'm quite behind in my reading--; I am thumbing through them to write this.)
Script-wise, Dean has a point: many of those stories appeared to be simple short stories drawn out over three times the number of pages their plot required, through much padding. Some of them tried to be hip and trendy, or plain goofy, which did not work because style does not make (up) for substance. And then others tried to be smart and (post-)modern but failed.
The overall result was thus very uneven and disappointing; Pat & Carol McGreal write good stories (there are some I didn't like, though), Stefan Petrucha is reliable (his X-Files Mouse stories are fun), the "TNT" series is rather original and fun (a comic MIB with ducks), ..., but there were also "good premise but disappointing story", "what's the point?" or just plain "how could they pick this?" moments.
A case in point of the latter, and the worst story, is "Ring Thrice and I'll Clobber You, My Lad" (D98058, Mark Shaw & Bancells), where Daisy becomes a bully who kicks and beats Donald every other page, and it whole leads to an appalling climax where the "only" solution to the problem is for Donald to beat Daisy to a pulp (to exorcize her), hitting her first with tons of food, but then using a giant hammer, punching her repeatedly in the head, taking her by the feet and smashing her against the hard rocky ground-- and then the "cured" Daisy tramples him and kicks him with a board.
I cannot understand how such a story could ever be accepted by the Disney powers, and how Gemstone could publish such trash-- I'm sorry for the creators, but there's not other word for it; I am not a prude Dr Wertham, but there is no justifying so much senseless and pretty graphic violence (it's not a "whirlwind" fight with only onomatopae, you clearly see Donald punch Daisy several time) against a female character.
Actually, this story so totally ruined the book (which featured a rather funny Italian MM story "The Imperial Vortex, and another very good & original Petrucha story) that it certainly accounts for my having stopped reading my collection of pocketbooks, so sour was the taste left in my mouth.
Hence my question: how were the stories chosen, and how could this one in particular ever be printed? Even if it was part of a batch, I can't imagine how Gemstone could print that.
I loved the Gutenberghus stories in Gladstone's comics; they were true to the characters, and did not try to be sophisticated nor to turn the characters into some odd stereotypical model of hip modern "young" attitude. Like Barks & Van Horn's, the ten-pagers had simple, straightforward plots that were nicely told, and even made a point.
Too many of today's stories lack all this. I would rather have older but good stories.
As for the art, many of those stories were not visually appealing either; it's all a matter of personal taste, of course, but I don't like Flemming Anderson's distorted drawings, for instance; yet, beyond individual taste, the artist's talent very obviously has an enormous impact on the story, and can either enhance an average story, making it at least tolerable and agreeable eye-candy, and in the best instances, improving on it (through added nuances in the characterization, staging, ...), or make it even worse.
For instance, as I said above, I found the "TNT" stories pretty amusing, but I would have them enjoyed them more had tye been drawn by someone else. And to more objectively illustrate the difference an artist can make, you simply have to compare the covers with the stories: Michael Nadorp's cover for DDA 15 is not only more nicely drawn, but a lot more effective thant Anderson's page of the respective story ("Old Number One", p 31-- or more easily: final page minus 5); William Van Horn's cover for DDA 14 is another example.
Such discrepencies obviously make for huge disappointments.
I'm sure the comics would be more endurably appealing to casual readers if you tried to return to the kind of stories Gladstone used to run, rather than print such new stories, believing that their being contemporary (cell phones, computers, future world biker Mickey, ...) makes them more alluring. The truly good stories are never outdated.
As for the books, special Daan Jippes books would be great; I wish you can print more than two stories per book; you know you have a certain number of guaranteed sales with us (I don't think there are many people who don't like Jippes' work-- be it with Milton or Barks); a slightly larger book with an attractive price, featuring 4-5 stories would probably help gain readership.
Naturally, I'm still much in favor of a new Barks Library, a Gottfredson Library, a Taliaferro Library, especially if they are done like the E.C. Archives; I'll repeat my previous mesages on the subject: these are the most splendid book I have; the quality of the paper, the binding, the printing, and the coloring, is outstanding; each page is gorgeous.
If you do a Disney Library this way, though, please try and include slightly longer essays; those in the E.C. Archives are very interesting, but are too short; I will gladly pay 5 dollars more if it enables you to print longer articles, in the vein of the first two CBLs.
Olivier
Many licence agreements, financial constraints and risks are to be taken in consideration, which I do not know about and probably cannot imagine, but ideally speaking, as a reader, I suppose a third regular title might be a good idea, idea.
This would naturally enable Gemstone to further diversify the contents of WDC&S and give us even more comics to read-- and maybe not necessarily in the prestige format (beautiful & certainly appealing to potential readers though it is), if this makes it easier on the costs and makes for more pages.
There is one thing I would love to see return (I have actually already said it here): articles on Disney comics and history, whether 2 pages or even only 1 page long. Gemstone does run inside cover essays by Don on his stories, but what made Gladstone particularly unique (to me, at least, comparing to French publications; I think it's different with the Greek Komix, for one) were all those "The Year That Was...", "Gladstone Profile", ..., features.
Regarding the stories themselves, the format per se is not the problem, naturally, though the infamous 3/6-panel stories do take some place in the star titles, which makes for even greater disappointment with the lesser stories.
(I have bought all the DDA & MMA pocket books, but have not read them all yet-- I'm quite behind in my reading--; I am thumbing through them to write this.)
Script-wise, Dean has a point: many of those stories appeared to be simple short stories drawn out over three times the number of pages their plot required, through much padding. Some of them tried to be hip and trendy, or plain goofy, which did not work because style does not make (up) for substance. And then others tried to be smart and (post-)modern but failed.
The overall result was thus very uneven and disappointing; Pat & Carol McGreal write good stories (there are some I didn't like, though), Stefan Petrucha is reliable (his X-Files Mouse stories are fun), the "TNT" series is rather original and fun (a comic MIB with ducks), ..., but there were also "good premise but disappointing story", "what's the point?" or just plain "how could they pick this?" moments.
A case in point of the latter, and the worst story, is "Ring Thrice and I'll Clobber You, My Lad" (D98058, Mark Shaw & Bancells), where Daisy becomes a bully who kicks and beats Donald every other page, and it whole leads to an appalling climax where the "only" solution to the problem is for Donald to beat Daisy to a pulp (to exorcize her), hitting her first with tons of food, but then using a giant hammer, punching her repeatedly in the head, taking her by the feet and smashing her against the hard rocky ground-- and then the "cured" Daisy tramples him and kicks him with a board.
I cannot understand how such a story could ever be accepted by the Disney powers, and how Gemstone could publish such trash-- I'm sorry for the creators, but there's not other word for it; I am not a prude Dr Wertham, but there is no justifying so much senseless and pretty graphic violence (it's not a "whirlwind" fight with only onomatopae, you clearly see Donald punch Daisy several time) against a female character.
Actually, this story so totally ruined the book (which featured a rather funny Italian MM story "The Imperial Vortex, and another very good & original Petrucha story) that it certainly accounts for my having stopped reading my collection of pocketbooks, so sour was the taste left in my mouth.
Hence my question: how were the stories chosen, and how could this one in particular ever be printed? Even if it was part of a batch, I can't imagine how Gemstone could print that.
I loved the Gutenberghus stories in Gladstone's comics; they were true to the characters, and did not try to be sophisticated nor to turn the characters into some odd stereotypical model of hip modern "young" attitude. Like Barks & Van Horn's, the ten-pagers had simple, straightforward plots that were nicely told, and even made a point.
Too many of today's stories lack all this. I would rather have older but good stories.
As for the art, many of those stories were not visually appealing either; it's all a matter of personal taste, of course, but I don't like Flemming Anderson's distorted drawings, for instance; yet, beyond individual taste, the artist's talent very obviously has an enormous impact on the story, and can either enhance an average story, making it at least tolerable and agreeable eye-candy, and in the best instances, improving on it (through added nuances in the characterization, staging, ...), or make it even worse.
For instance, as I said above, I found the "TNT" stories pretty amusing, but I would have them enjoyed them more had tye been drawn by someone else. And to more objectively illustrate the difference an artist can make, you simply have to compare the covers with the stories: Michael Nadorp's cover for DDA 15 is not only more nicely drawn, but a lot more effective thant Anderson's page of the respective story ("Old Number One", p 31-- or more easily: final page minus 5); William Van Horn's cover for DDA 14 is another example.
Such discrepencies obviously make for huge disappointments.
I'm sure the comics would be more endurably appealing to casual readers if you tried to return to the kind of stories Gladstone used to run, rather than print such new stories, believing that their being contemporary (cell phones, computers, future world biker Mickey, ...) makes them more alluring. The truly good stories are never outdated.
As for the books, special Daan Jippes books would be great; I wish you can print more than two stories per book; you know you have a certain number of guaranteed sales with us (I don't think there are many people who don't like Jippes' work-- be it with Milton or Barks); a slightly larger book with an attractive price, featuring 4-5 stories would probably help gain readership.
Naturally, I'm still much in favor of a new Barks Library, a Gottfredson Library, a Taliaferro Library, especially if they are done like the E.C. Archives; I'll repeat my previous mesages on the subject: these are the most splendid book I have; the quality of the paper, the binding, the printing, and the coloring, is outstanding; each page is gorgeous.
If you do a Disney Library this way, though, please try and include slightly longer essays; those in the E.C. Archives are very interesting, but are too short; I will gladly pay 5 dollars more if it enables you to print longer articles, in the vein of the first two CBLs.
Olivier
Gary Leach
"Ring Twice..."
Message 18 -
2007-11-11 at 20:21:02
Olivier,
> ?the worst story, is "Ring Thrice and I'll Clobber You, My
> Lad" (D98058, Mark Shaw & Bancells), where Daisy becomes a bully
> who kicks and beats Donald every other page, and it whole leads to
> an appalling climax where the "only" solution to the problem is for
> Donald to beat Daisy to a pulp (to exorcize her), hitting her first
> with tons of food, but then using a giant hammer, punching her
> repeatedly in the head, taking her by the feet and smashing her
> against the hard rocky ground-- and then the "cured" Daisy tramples
> him and kicks him with a board.
> I cannot understand how such a story could ever be accepted by the
> Disney powers, and how Gemstone could publish such trash-- I'm
> sorry for the creators, but there's not other word for it; I am not
> a prude Dr Wertham, but there is no justifying so much senseless
> and pretty graphic violence (it's not a "whirlwind" fight with only
> onomatopae, you clearly see Donald punch Daisy several time)
> against a female character.
It's fine that you didn't like the story - by the sound of you pretty
much loathed it - but am I to understand that you've never read other
stories where Daisy has bullied Donald and beaten him silly over some
real or imagined slight? I did not find this story at all exceptional
in that respect.
Gary
> ?the worst story, is "Ring Thrice and I'll Clobber You, My
> Lad" (D98058, Mark Shaw & Bancells), where Daisy becomes a bully
> who kicks and beats Donald every other page, and it whole leads to
> an appalling climax where the "only" solution to the problem is for
> Donald to beat Daisy to a pulp (to exorcize her), hitting her first
> with tons of food, but then using a giant hammer, punching her
> repeatedly in the head, taking her by the feet and smashing her
> against the hard rocky ground-- and then the "cured" Daisy tramples
> him and kicks him with a board.
> I cannot understand how such a story could ever be accepted by the
> Disney powers, and how Gemstone could publish such trash-- I'm
> sorry for the creators, but there's not other word for it; I am not
> a prude Dr Wertham, but there is no justifying so much senseless
> and pretty graphic violence (it's not a "whirlwind" fight with only
> onomatopae, you clearly see Donald punch Daisy several time)
> against a female character.
It's fine that you didn't like the story - by the sound of you pretty
much loathed it - but am I to understand that you've never read other
stories where Daisy has bullied Donald and beaten him silly over some
real or imagined slight? I did not find this story at all exceptional
in that respect.
Gary
Olivier (M&D)
"Ring Twice..."
Message 19 -
2007-11-11 at 21:16:36
Gary:
>>> It's fine that you didn't like the story - by the sound of you pretty much
>>> loathed it - but am I to understand that you've never read other stories
>>> where Daisy has bullied Donald and beaten him silly over some real
>>> or imagined slight?
Daisy can certainly be tempermental; what I find objectionable in this particular story is the fact that to exorcize Daisy at the end, Donald beats her very violently-- we clearly see him punch her twice in the face, then take her by the feet to smash her (head) repeatedly on the ground.
That is what shocked me-- and, as I said, I'm not prudish either; I love horror comics (E.C., Eerie, ...) and have no problem with the violence in a animated features.
The problem here is the character being beaten is Daisy (albeit possessed)-- a female character.
Seeing Donald chase the nephews with a stick to punish them (rightfully so or not) is not exactly a pleasant idea either, but it's rarely actually shown, and usually the punchline of a story (with sometimes even Donald being pursued at the same time, as is the case at the end of a drama club story by Barks-- the one with Sir Potkettle if I remember correctly).
Here, we see Donald beat Daisy to what would be pulp normally.
And it's not funny.
In spite of the dialogue, there's no tragic sense of "sorry, but there's no other solution" (unlike The Evil Dead, where you can feel for Ash, who must fight, maim and destroy his friends and his girlfriend).
Dr Wertham would have found his job already done for him with this story; he might even have said that the ending shows beating Daisy was not enough; even her true self is violent at the end, rather than thankful. He would have concluded she (and women, through her) was depicted as evil, and/or that Donald had not beaten her enough (a woman needs a good beating).
This is certainly not what I think the authors meant, mind you.
My problem is with Donald beating her up so.
I'm sorry if my criticism sounded harsh (towards the authors and Gemstone). If it were not for this climactic beating, the story would be okay; but I can't find any justification for one character so graphically beating up a female character (or children if that had been the case) in a Disney comic.
Olivier
>>> It's fine that you didn't like the story - by the sound of you pretty much
>>> loathed it - but am I to understand that you've never read other stories
>>> where Daisy has bullied Donald and beaten him silly over some real
>>> or imagined slight?
Daisy can certainly be tempermental; what I find objectionable in this particular story is the fact that to exorcize Daisy at the end, Donald beats her very violently-- we clearly see him punch her twice in the face, then take her by the feet to smash her (head) repeatedly on the ground.
That is what shocked me-- and, as I said, I'm not prudish either; I love horror comics (E.C., Eerie, ...) and have no problem with the violence in a animated features.
The problem here is the character being beaten is Daisy (albeit possessed)-- a female character.
Seeing Donald chase the nephews with a stick to punish them (rightfully so or not) is not exactly a pleasant idea either, but it's rarely actually shown, and usually the punchline of a story (with sometimes even Donald being pursued at the same time, as is the case at the end of a drama club story by Barks-- the one with Sir Potkettle if I remember correctly).
Here, we see Donald beat Daisy to what would be pulp normally.
And it's not funny.
In spite of the dialogue, there's no tragic sense of "sorry, but there's no other solution" (unlike The Evil Dead, where you can feel for Ash, who must fight, maim and destroy his friends and his girlfriend).
Dr Wertham would have found his job already done for him with this story; he might even have said that the ending shows beating Daisy was not enough; even her true self is violent at the end, rather than thankful. He would have concluded she (and women, through her) was depicted as evil, and/or that Donald had not beaten her enough (a woman needs a good beating).
This is certainly not what I think the authors meant, mind you.
My problem is with Donald beating her up so.
I'm sorry if my criticism sounded harsh (towards the authors and Gemstone). If it were not for this climactic beating, the story would be okay; but I can't find any justification for one character so graphically beating up a female character (or children if that had been the case) in a Disney comic.
Olivier
Gary Leach
Donald and Daisy
Message 20 -
2007-11-12 at 18:39:32
Olivier,
> Here, we see Donald beat Daisy to what would be pulp normally.
> And it's not funny.
Fair enough.
> Dr Wertham would have found his job already done for him with this
> story; he might even have said that the ending shows beating Daisy
> was not enough; even her true self is violent at the end, rather
> than thankful. He would have concluded she (and women, through her)
> was depicted as evil, and/or that Donald had not beaten her enough
> (a woman needs a good beating).
This is a more problematic assessment. I didn't take that meaning at
all. You do say that you didn't think the creators meant to convey
it, so it would appear were both taking things more subjectively here.
> I'm sorry if my criticism sounded harsh (towards the authors and
> Gemstone). If it were not for this climactic beating, the story
> would be okay; but I can't find any justification for one character
> so graphically beating up a female character (or children if that
> had been the case) in a Disney comic.
I don't think you were being harsh. You explained your views well and
honestly. And, as you've probably discerned, your points interest me.
This one in particular: above you venture the statement "?but I can't
find justification for one character so graphically beating up a
female character?", which is perfectly straightforward. But I have a
problem with the object's adjective, which leaves us with the idea -
my extraction, not your intent - that it is okay for a male character
to be beaten up without justification.
That's actually the idea that sits at the center of how things work
between Donald and Daisy. This story may take it a bit farther than
usual, but we've seen the dynamic in action in countless stories over
the years, where Daisy has been depicted as a thoughtless, selfish,
reactionary shrew who thinks nothing of beating Donald to a pulp
verbally and/or physically on the slightest pretext. It's a horribly
dated stereotype of the female psyche, yet Daisy is still saddled
with it, and Donald still takes the abuse with equally stereotypical
male aplomb.
Here we have a story where Donald finally responds to Daisy's abuse
in kind...sort of. Donald's justification for beating up the
possessed Daisy may seem flimsy, but it's still far sounder than
Daisy's justification for her relentless hammering on an unpossessed
Donald. More generally, we've got two characters who visually appear
to be physical equals, assigned gender roles mainly through dress,
and while the one wearing the ribbon is allowed and even expected to
express a bullying pathology, the one wearing the sailer hat, though
similarly temperamental, shocks by doing the same.
I'll be straightforward myself: I've never found Daisy's abuse of
Donald funny. I accept it as a convention of long standing, the
wholesale rejection of which would cause unassessed rejection of a
great deal of material. When a story comes along that actually forces
that convention out of its usual channels, or at least pokes it in
the eye, that gives it a leg up in my book (so to speak). Whether it
ultimately entertains readers is, of course, another matter.
Gary
> Here, we see Donald beat Daisy to what would be pulp normally.
> And it's not funny.
Fair enough.
> Dr Wertham would have found his job already done for him with this
> story; he might even have said that the ending shows beating Daisy
> was not enough; even her true self is violent at the end, rather
> than thankful. He would have concluded she (and women, through her)
> was depicted as evil, and/or that Donald had not beaten her enough
> (a woman needs a good beating).
This is a more problematic assessment. I didn't take that meaning at
all. You do say that you didn't think the creators meant to convey
it, so it would appear were both taking things more subjectively here.
> I'm sorry if my criticism sounded harsh (towards the authors and
> Gemstone). If it were not for this climactic beating, the story
> would be okay; but I can't find any justification for one character
> so graphically beating up a female character (or children if that
> had been the case) in a Disney comic.
I don't think you were being harsh. You explained your views well and
honestly. And, as you've probably discerned, your points interest me.
This one in particular: above you venture the statement "?but I can't
find justification for one character so graphically beating up a
female character?", which is perfectly straightforward. But I have a
problem with the object's adjective, which leaves us with the idea -
my extraction, not your intent - that it is okay for a male character
to be beaten up without justification.
That's actually the idea that sits at the center of how things work
between Donald and Daisy. This story may take it a bit farther than
usual, but we've seen the dynamic in action in countless stories over
the years, where Daisy has been depicted as a thoughtless, selfish,
reactionary shrew who thinks nothing of beating Donald to a pulp
verbally and/or physically on the slightest pretext. It's a horribly
dated stereotype of the female psyche, yet Daisy is still saddled
with it, and Donald still takes the abuse with equally stereotypical
male aplomb.
Here we have a story where Donald finally responds to Daisy's abuse
in kind...sort of. Donald's justification for beating up the
possessed Daisy may seem flimsy, but it's still far sounder than
Daisy's justification for her relentless hammering on an unpossessed
Donald. More generally, we've got two characters who visually appear
to be physical equals, assigned gender roles mainly through dress,
and while the one wearing the ribbon is allowed and even expected to
express a bullying pathology, the one wearing the sailer hat, though
similarly temperamental, shocks by doing the same.
I'll be straightforward myself: I've never found Daisy's abuse of
Donald funny. I accept it as a convention of long standing, the
wholesale rejection of which would cause unassessed rejection of a
great deal of material. When a story comes along that actually forces
that convention out of its usual channels, or at least pokes it in
the eye, that gives it a leg up in my book (so to speak). Whether it
ultimately entertains readers is, of course, another matter.
Gary
Olivier (M&D)
Donald and Daisy / Sleuth & Diaz
Message 21 -
2007-11-12 at 19:59:53
Gary quoting me:
>>>> Dr Wertham [...] might even have said that the ending shows
>>>> [...] beating Daisy was not enough; even her true self is violent [...]
>>>> she (and women, through her) was depicted as evil, and/or [...]
>>>> Donald had not beaten her enough (a woman needs a good beating).
Gary:
>> This is a more problematic assessment.
>> I didn't take that meaning at all.
>> You do say that you didn't think the creators meant to convey it
>> so it would appear were both taking things more subjectively here.
Right. I did not even think of this interpretation of the ending when reading the story; it just occurred to me when going through it again for this discussion.
I'm sure this is not the author's intent, and rather an ironic twist to the ending, with Donald being again the victim, however heroic he may have acted; countless Italian (European?) stories end thusly, to the point of it seeming to be a tradition, some sort of requirement (like Krazy Kat always getting the brick in the head).
Seeing this ending again, however, I could easily see how it could be interpreted this way.
>>>> You explained your views well and honestly.
>>>> And, as you've probably discerned, your points interest me.
Thanks. I hope other readers will join the discussion (on either side).
>>>> This one in particular: above you venture the statement
>>>> "?but I can't find justification for one character so graphically
>>>> beating up a female character?", which is perfectly straightforward.
>>>> But I have a problem with the object's adjective, which leaves us
>>>> with the idea - my extraction, not your intent - that it is okay
>>>> for a male character to be beaten up without justification.
You got me there (almost); I did think of children when typing this, but not the other around-- for the very reason you give below.
>>>> That's actually the idea that sits at the center of how things
>>>> work between Donald and Daisy. [...] Daisy has been depicted
>>>> as a thoughtless, selfish, reactionary shrew who thinks nothing
>>>> of beating Donald to a pulp verbally and/or physically on the
>>>> slightest pretext. It's a horribly dated stereotype of the female psyche,
>>>> yet Daisy is still saddled with it, and Donald still takes the abuse with
>>>> equally stereotypical male aplomb.
I also did think of referring to the stereotypical hen-pecked husband that is humiliated or beaten in many plays, symbolically or very concretely, but frankly, I did not know where to insert it in my paragraphs. You expressed it a lot better than I would have.
>>>> More generally, we've got two characters who visually
>>>> appear to be physical equals, assigned gender roles mainly through dress
This does add an interesting layer to the discussion (regardless of the story considered).
>>>> Here we have a story where Donald finally responds to Daisy's abuse
>>>> in kind...sort of. Donald's justification for beating up the possessed Daisy
>>>> may seem flimsy, but it's still far sounder than Daisy's justification for her relentless
>>>> hammering on an unpossessed Donald.
[...]
>>>> I'll be straightforward myself: I've never found Daisy's abuse of Donald funny.
>>>> I accept it as a convention of long standing
The thing is, I'm not sure it's meant to be funny, like slapstick. Donald is the eternal victim (starting with the animated shorts, then more especially in the European tradition; Barks managed to show him as capable of much bravery): always down on his luck, always fired, always a failure, and often quite literally kicked around, including by Daisy.
The point, I think, is to make us feel sorry and care for him, rather than laugh at him, so that we may identify with him and rejoice at the redeeming portion of a story that shows him to be worth a lot more-- it so happens I have just read "Crystal Ball" (DD99093, Spectrum Associates & Bancells, MMA pocketbook 8) while downloading & installing software; first Donald is told off as being a nuisance, then he accidentally saves the day, and his family eventually apologize to him.
>>>> When a story comes along that actually forces that convention
>>>> out of its usual channels, or at least pokes it in the eye,
>>>> that gives it a leg up in my book (so to speak).
I can understand this view.
Still, I think the same result could have been achieved by being less graphic.
To end on a lighter note (interesting as the discussion is, it is not exactly a funny subject), I'll say I have always enjoyed the "Mickey and the Sleuth" stories which Jonathan found asinine; their very silliness makes them funny.
I'm not sure whether the "utterly horrid Disney Studio stories" you mentionned included or were one with the Jaime Diaz stories, which I also like (though all the Goofy stories published in the eponymous comic were not good); I read "Goofy King Midas" last night.
The literally goofy and absurd details of this silly story (again) make it a fun experience.
The thing I absolutely adore and admire in Diaz's stories is the layout, the way he plays with the page's composition, the division into panels using background & set props-- a temple's columns, for instance; my favorite layout in this story is the vine whose grape (still on the stalk) is pressed, and the juice flows in a tube that loops around to form a medallion panel, and ends up watering the very same vine in its pot.
Olivier
>>>> Dr Wertham [...] might even have said that the ending shows
>>>> [...] beating Daisy was not enough; even her true self is violent [...]
>>>> she (and women, through her) was depicted as evil, and/or [...]
>>>> Donald had not beaten her enough (a woman needs a good beating).
Gary:
>> This is a more problematic assessment.
>> I didn't take that meaning at all.
>> You do say that you didn't think the creators meant to convey it
>> so it would appear were both taking things more subjectively here.
Right. I did not even think of this interpretation of the ending when reading the story; it just occurred to me when going through it again for this discussion.
I'm sure this is not the author's intent, and rather an ironic twist to the ending, with Donald being again the victim, however heroic he may have acted; countless Italian (European?) stories end thusly, to the point of it seeming to be a tradition, some sort of requirement (like Krazy Kat always getting the brick in the head).
Seeing this ending again, however, I could easily see how it could be interpreted this way.
>>>> You explained your views well and honestly.
>>>> And, as you've probably discerned, your points interest me.
Thanks. I hope other readers will join the discussion (on either side).
>>>> This one in particular: above you venture the statement
>>>> "?but I can't find justification for one character so graphically
>>>> beating up a female character?", which is perfectly straightforward.
>>>> But I have a problem with the object's adjective, which leaves us
>>>> with the idea - my extraction, not your intent - that it is okay
>>>> for a male character to be beaten up without justification.
You got me there (almost); I did think of children when typing this, but not the other around-- for the very reason you give below.
>>>> That's actually the idea that sits at the center of how things
>>>> work between Donald and Daisy. [...] Daisy has been depicted
>>>> as a thoughtless, selfish, reactionary shrew who thinks nothing
>>>> of beating Donald to a pulp verbally and/or physically on the
>>>> slightest pretext. It's a horribly dated stereotype of the female psyche,
>>>> yet Daisy is still saddled with it, and Donald still takes the abuse with
>>>> equally stereotypical male aplomb.
I also did think of referring to the stereotypical hen-pecked husband that is humiliated or beaten in many plays, symbolically or very concretely, but frankly, I did not know where to insert it in my paragraphs. You expressed it a lot better than I would have.
>>>> More generally, we've got two characters who visually
>>>> appear to be physical equals, assigned gender roles mainly through dress
This does add an interesting layer to the discussion (regardless of the story considered).
>>>> Here we have a story where Donald finally responds to Daisy's abuse
>>>> in kind...sort of. Donald's justification for beating up the possessed Daisy
>>>> may seem flimsy, but it's still far sounder than Daisy's justification for her relentless
>>>> hammering on an unpossessed Donald.
[...]
>>>> I'll be straightforward myself: I've never found Daisy's abuse of Donald funny.
>>>> I accept it as a convention of long standing
The thing is, I'm not sure it's meant to be funny, like slapstick. Donald is the eternal victim (starting with the animated shorts, then more especially in the European tradition; Barks managed to show him as capable of much bravery): always down on his luck, always fired, always a failure, and often quite literally kicked around, including by Daisy.
The point, I think, is to make us feel sorry and care for him, rather than laugh at him, so that we may identify with him and rejoice at the redeeming portion of a story that shows him to be worth a lot more-- it so happens I have just read "Crystal Ball" (DD99093, Spectrum Associates & Bancells, MMA pocketbook 8) while downloading & installing software; first Donald is told off as being a nuisance, then he accidentally saves the day, and his family eventually apologize to him.
>>>> When a story comes along that actually forces that convention
>>>> out of its usual channels, or at least pokes it in the eye,
>>>> that gives it a leg up in my book (so to speak).
I can understand this view.
Still, I think the same result could have been achieved by being less graphic.
To end on a lighter note (interesting as the discussion is, it is not exactly a funny subject), I'll say I have always enjoyed the "Mickey and the Sleuth" stories which Jonathan found asinine; their very silliness makes them funny.
I'm not sure whether the "utterly horrid Disney Studio stories" you mentionned included or were one with the Jaime Diaz stories, which I also like (though all the Goofy stories published in the eponymous comic were not good); I read "Goofy King Midas" last night.
The literally goofy and absurd details of this silly story (again) make it a fun experience.
The thing I absolutely adore and admire in Diaz's stories is the layout, the way he plays with the page's composition, the division into panels using background & set props-- a temple's columns, for instance; my favorite layout in this story is the vine whose grape (still on the stalk) is pressed, and the juice flows in a tube that loops around to form a medallion panel, and ends up watering the very same vine in its pot.
Olivier
Fluks, H.W. (Harry)
Don about Finland
Message 22 -
2007-11-12 at 21:35:22
Don Rosa wrote:
> Only Disney and the publisher profit from all our work.
I thought that an artist or writer got some money nowadays, if his NAME
is mentioned on the cover?
Or have they started NOT mentioning your name on the covers now?
Or am I misremembering?
Or...?
--Harry.
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
> Only Disney and the publisher profit from all our work.
I thought that an artist or writer got some money nowadays, if his NAME
is mentioned on the cover?
Or have they started NOT mentioning your name on the covers now?
Or am I misremembering?
Or...?
--Harry.
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
Niels Houlberg Hansen
The Floyd Gottfredson Library
Message 23 -
2007-11-13 at 09:54:03
Hello
I noticed that Amazon are now taking preorders for "The Floyd
Gottfredson Library: The Best of Mickey Mouse - Daily Strips 1930-1933".
Could anyone of the Gemstone people tell us more about this interesting
publication?
- Will it contain volumes 1930-33 completely or highlights ("best")
only?
- Is it in black/white or colour?
- How many strips on each page?
- Are the stories unedited (uncensored)?
- Will it come with a special DVD where Leonard Maltin warns about
stereotypes and prejudices of that period? (That was a joke - I've been
watching too many "Disney Treasures").
Kind regards
Niels
I noticed that Amazon are now taking preorders for "The Floyd
Gottfredson Library: The Best of Mickey Mouse - Daily Strips 1930-1933".
Could anyone of the Gemstone people tell us more about this interesting
publication?
- Will it contain volumes 1930-33 completely or highlights ("best")
only?
- Is it in black/white or colour?
- How many strips on each page?
- Are the stories unedited (uncensored)?
- Will it come with a special DVD where Leonard Maltin warns about
stereotypes and prejudices of that period? (That was a joke - I've been
watching too many "Disney Treasures").
Kind regards
Niels
Olivier (M&D)
The Floyd Gottfredson Library
Message 24 -
2007-11-13 at 11:34:06
The Floyd Gottfredson LibraryNiels:
>>>> I noticed that Amazon are now taking preorders for
>>>> "The Floyd Gottfredson Library: The Best of Mickey Mouse - Daily Strips 1930-1933".
That's wonderful news!
Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1603600434/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance
>>>> Could anyone of the Gemstone people tell us more about this interesting publication?
>>>> - Will it contain volumes 1930-33 completely or highlights ("best") only?
The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together the majority of Gottfredson's works".
:\
Does this mean the restrictions still apply?
:(
To Niels' questions I would add:
- is it the same kind of book as the E.C. Archives (paper & binding)?
- will there be one-page essays as in those books, or longer ones as in the CBL (both versions)?
Olivier
>>>> I noticed that Amazon are now taking preorders for
>>>> "The Floyd Gottfredson Library: The Best of Mickey Mouse - Daily Strips 1930-1933".
That's wonderful news!
Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1603600434/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance
>>>> Could anyone of the Gemstone people tell us more about this interesting publication?
>>>> - Will it contain volumes 1930-33 completely or highlights ("best") only?
The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together the majority of Gottfredson's works".
:\
Does this mean the restrictions still apply?
:(
To Niels' questions I would add:
- is it the same kind of book as the E.C. Archives (paper & binding)?
- will there be one-page essays as in those books, or longer ones as in the CBL (both versions)?
Olivier
Francesco Spreafico
The Floyd Gottfredson Library
Message 25 -
2007-11-13 at 11:41:19
Olivier (M&D) wrote:
> The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together the
> majority of Gottfredson's works".
> :\
> Does this mean the restrictions still apply?
> :(
I read it as "dailies 1930-1955"... I WANT to read it like that... that
would be the "majority". :-)
David? Anyone?
--
Francesco
> The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together the
> majority of Gottfredson's works".
> :\
> Does this mean the restrictions still apply?
> :(
I read it as "dailies 1930-1955"... I WANT to read it like that... that
would be the "majority". :-)
David? Anyone?
--
Francesco
Fluks, H.W. (Harry)
The Floyd Gottfredson Library
Message 26 -
2007-11-13 at 11:48:23
Olivier quoted:
> The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together
> the majority of Gottfredson's works".
I *hope* this refers to the fact that they won't print all the daily MM
strips from 1956 - 1975.
And that the *other* strips will be complete and uncensored.
--Harry.
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
> The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together
> the majority of Gottfredson's works".
I *hope* this refers to the fact that they won't print all the daily MM
strips from 1956 - 1975.
And that the *other* strips will be complete and uncensored.
--Harry.
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
Olivier (M&D)
The University of Oregon & Donald Duck
Message 27 -
2007-11-13 at 13:54:44
I should have posted it this when I saw it last week:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/11/01/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-127/
"The University of Oregon has a special agreement with Walt Disney to use Donald Duck as their mascot."
Olivier
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/11/01/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-127/
"The University of Oregon has a special agreement with Walt Disney to use Donald Duck as their mascot."
Olivier
Fluks, H.W. (Harry)
The University of Oregon & Donald Duck
Message 28 -
2007-11-13 at 14:30:12
Olivier wrote:
>
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/11/01/comic-book-urban-leg
ends-revealed-127/
> "The University of Oregon has a special agreement with Walt
> Disney to use Donald Duck as their mascot."
It says "any merchandise bearing Donald could only be sold in Oregon".
Still, at the end of the previous century, a T-shirt with this duck
ended up in Europe:
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2000/usahfdr.jpg (San Diego, USA, 2000)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2000/usatank.jpg (Grants Pass, Oregon,
USA, 2000)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2001/grado3.jpg (Grado, Italy, 2001)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2004/p04-05-sko13.jpg (Odder, Denmark,
2004)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2005/p05-03-lje-hf-fmi.jpg (Ballerup,
Denmark, 2005)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2007/p07-03-carlofaustoharry.jpg
(Rapallo, Italy, 2007)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2007/p07-04-LaHF.jpg (Store Fuglede,
Denmark, 2007)
And currently it's in the Netherlands.
8-)
--Harry.
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
>
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/11/01/comic-book-urban-leg
ends-revealed-127/
> "The University of Oregon has a special agreement with Walt
> Disney to use Donald Duck as their mascot."
It says "any merchandise bearing Donald could only be sold in Oregon".
Still, at the end of the previous century, a T-shirt with this duck
ended up in Europe:
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2000/usahfdr.jpg (San Diego, USA, 2000)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2000/usatank.jpg (Grants Pass, Oregon,
USA, 2000)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2001/grado3.jpg (Grado, Italy, 2001)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2004/p04-05-sko13.jpg (Odder, Denmark,
2004)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2005/p05-03-lje-hf-fmi.jpg (Ballerup,
Denmark, 2005)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2007/p07-03-carlofaustoharry.jpg
(Rapallo, Italy, 2007)
http://dd50.inducks.org/fotos/j2007/p07-04-LaHF.jpg (Store Fuglede,
Denmark, 2007)
And currently it's in the Netherlands.
8-)
--Harry.
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
Gary Leach
Gottfredson
Message 29 -
2007-11-13 at 17:42:18
Olivier,
> The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together the
> majority of Gottfredson's works".
> :\
> Does this mean the restrictions still apply?
> :(
I haven't seen a definitive rundown on the contents of the
Gottfredson books, so I can't speak to what will finally be in them.
It is my understanding, though, that there are restrictions on some
of the earliest strips, due to their content.
Disney does have great enthusiasm for this project, and wants to see
it happen. From what I gather, and for what it's worth, they're as
disappointed as we are that there are some strips they just can't see
their way to allowing to be reproduced.
Gary
> The blurb says "This multi-volume collection brings together the
> majority of Gottfredson's works".
> :\
> Does this mean the restrictions still apply?
> :(
I haven't seen a definitive rundown on the contents of the
Gottfredson books, so I can't speak to what will finally be in them.
It is my understanding, though, that there are restrictions on some
of the earliest strips, due to their content.
Disney does have great enthusiasm for this project, and wants to see
it happen. From what I gather, and for what it's worth, they're as
disappointed as we are that there are some strips they just can't see
their way to allowing to be reproduced.
Gary
Francesco Spreafico
Gottfredson
Message 30 -
2007-11-13 at 18:26:27
Gary Leach wrote:
> Disney does have great enthusiasm for this project, and wants to see
> it happen. From what I gather, and for what it's worth, they're as
> disappointed as we are that there are some strips they just can't see
> their way to allowing to be reproduced.
I don't understand... is at Disney they're disappointed... then who is
censoring this collection? Do they (whoever "they" are) know you're
certainly losing most of the buyers this way?
Francesco
> Disney does have great enthusiasm for this project, and wants to see
> it happen. From what I gather, and for what it's worth, they're as
> disappointed as we are that there are some strips they just can't see
> their way to allowing to be reproduced.
I don't understand... is at Disney they're disappointed... then who is
censoring this collection? Do they (whoever "they" are) know you're
certainly losing most of the buyers this way?
Francesco